Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
University of Melbourne, School of Psychological Sciences, Redmond Barry Building, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2018 Mar 12;18(1):295. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5200-8.
Few studies have experimentally assessed the contribution of branding to the experience of smoking a cigarette, compared with the inherent properties of the product. This study examined the influence of cigarette brand name on the sensory experience of smoking a cigarette.
Seventy-five Australian smokers aged 18-39 years smoked two 'premium' cigarettes, one with the brand variant name shown and one with the brand variant name masked (which provided 'objective' ratings). Unknown to participants, the two cigarettes were identical. At recruitment, participants rated their expected enjoyment, quality and harshness of several premium cigarette brands.
Branded cigarettes were rated as having a significantly more favorable taste (M(SE) = 64.14(2.21)) than masked cigarettes (M(SE) = 58.53(2.26), p = .031). Branded cigarettes were also rated as being less stale (M(SE) = 36.04(2.62)) than masked cigarettes (M(SE) = 43.90(2.60), p = .011). Purchase intent tended to be higher among those shown the branded cigarette compared to the masked cigarette (χ (1) = 3.00, p = .083). Expected enjoyment and quality of the brand variant (enjoyment: b = 0.31, 95%CI = 0.11, 0.51, p < .01; quality: b = 0.46, 95%CI = 0.21, 0.72, p < .01) contributed to the perceived smoking experience more than the objective enjoyment and quality of the cigarette (enjoyment: b = 0.23, 95%CI = 0.05, 0.41, p < .05; quality: b = 0.08, 95%CI = - 0.13, 0.30, p > .05). This pattern was not observed for cigarette harshness.
A premium brand variant name can enhance the subjective experience of a cigarette. Further, smokers' expectations of such brand variants contribute to the smoking experience as much, if not more than, the actual qualities of the product.
与产品的固有特性相比,很少有研究从实验角度评估品牌对吸烟体验的影响。本研究旨在检验香烟品牌名称对吸烟感官体验的影响。
75 名 18-39 岁的澳大利亚吸烟者分别吸食两种“优质”香烟,一种是展示品牌变体名称的香烟,另一种是掩盖品牌变体名称的香烟(提供“客观”评分)。参与者并不知道这两种香烟是完全相同的。在招募时,参与者对几种优质香烟品牌的预期享受度、质量和浓烈度进行了评级。
有品牌的香烟被评为具有显著更优的口感(M(SE) = 64.14(2.21)),而掩盖品牌的香烟口感较差(M(SE) = 58.53(2.26),p = .031)。有品牌的香烟也被评为更新鲜(M(SE) = 36.04(2.62)),而掩盖品牌的香烟则较为陈旧(M(SE) = 43.90(2.60),p = .011)。与观看掩盖品牌变体的参与者相比,观看有品牌变体的参与者更倾向于购买(χ (1) = 3.00,p = .083)。参与者对品牌变体的预期享受度和质量(享受:b = 0.31,95%CI = 0.11,0.51,p < .01;质量:b = 0.46,95%CI = 0.21,0.72,p < .01)对感知吸烟体验的影响大于香烟的客观享受度和质量(享受:b = 0.23,95%CI = 0.05,0.41,p < .05;质量:b = 0.08,95%CI = - 0.13,0.30,p > .05)。但这一模式在香烟浓烈度方面并不明显。
优质品牌变体名称可以增强香烟的主观体验。此外,吸烟者对这些品牌变体的期望对吸烟体验的影响与产品的实际质量一样大,甚至更大。